Culver City Parking Maximums Study
1 Date: September 11, 2026
To: Gabriel Barreras
Company: City of Culver City
Copy To: Peer Chacko, Emily Stadnicki, Culver City
From: Tania Schleck, Chrissy Mancini Nichols, Walker Consultants Project Name: Culver City Parking Maximums Study
Project Number: 37-010433.00
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2 Current Policy Context ............................................................................................................................ 3 Case Study Cities ................................................................................................................................... 5 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Stakeholder Feedback Summary ............................................................................................................. 9 Benefits and Considerations of Parking Maximums ................................................................................ 11 Parking Maximums Best Practices ......................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A – Development Pipeline Summary ....................................................................................... 17 Appendix B - Development Pipeline Maps .............................................................................................. 19 Appendix C – Stakeholder Meeting Notes ............................................................................................... 20 Appendix D - Case Study Cities ............................................................................................................. 25
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
2 Executive Summary
The City of Culver City is considering adding parking maximums to its Zoning Code to manage excess parking supply while supporting mobility, housing, economic development, and climate goals. The City engaged Walker to evaluate best practices for parking maximums, drawing on Culver City development pipeline data, parking utilization counts at select sites, Downtown public parking utilization data, stakeholder input, and a review of policies in other California cities.
Key Takeaways
• Parking supply and demand in Culver City vary by context. Development projects in Culver City’s development pipeline provide a wide range of parking ratios based on project scale, land use, location, unit mix, and tenant needs. The parking counts that Walker conducted in Culver City similarly show that utilization varies by facility and land use, with some locations highly utilized during peak periods and others retaining available capacity. • Approximately one-quarter of Culver City’s pipeline projects exceed Culver City’s former minimum parking ratios. This data indicates that a maximum based on former minimums would affect at least some projects and should include a clear relief pathway for projects with demonstrated need.
• Case study cities use flexible, context-sensitive approaches to their parking maximum policies. Berkeley, Santa Monica, and San Diego generally focus parking maximums in transit-rich or downtown areas, pair caps with parking management, and allow flexibility when projects provide transportation amenities or meet administrative standards. • Stakeholders expressed concern about impacts on development feasibility. Focus group participants supported the removal of parking minimums but cautioned that rigid maximums could affect leasing, financing, project feasibility, and accessibility. They emphasized that any maximum policy should account for varying parking needs by land use and unit type, pair reduced private parking with transportation demand management (TDM), shared/public parking, curb management, and enforcement, and provide flexibility for projects with demonstrated need. • Evidence on parking maximum policy outcomes remains limited. Removing minimums, unbundling, and dynamic pricing show documented results, including lower parking construction costs, increased development feasibility, and more efficient use of existing supply. However, most maximums have been implemented in the past 5-7 years, resulting in minimal outcome data.
Summary of Best Practices
1. Set ratios based on market conditions and project context. Parking ratios should account for development feasibility, unit mix, land use, tenant needs, and broader market conditions so the policy limits excess parking without creating financing, leasing, or housing feasibility challenges.
2. Provide a clear administrative relief pathway. Case study cities pair maximums with the flexibility to exceed maximums through administrative exceedances, Administrative Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits, objective transportation-amenity standards, or Neighborhood Culver City Parking Maximums Study
3 Development Permits. Culver City should, where feasible, provide a predictable staff-level process for projects with demonstrated need.
3. Apply maximums where supporting conditions exist. The case studies suggest prioritizing areas with high-frequency transit, walkable access, public or district parking capacity, active curb management, shared parking opportunities, and enforceable TDM or pricing programs.
4. Include a review clause to monitor policy outcomes. Culver City should consider a 3- to 5-year review clause to evaluate parking utilization, development feasibility, transportation outcomes, curb and neighborhood impacts, equity and accessibility, and whether the maximum ratios, applicability areas, or relief process need refinement.
5. Consider complementary code updates. Parking maximums address only the number of parking spaces provided in a private development, but parking can have other impacts that require different mitigation strategies. Other policies to consider include:
a. Limit surface parking coverage on larger lots or for certain development types. b. Review parking dimension standards, including stall dimensions, aisle widths, compact- space allowances, tandem spaces, and other space-efficient configurations. c. Encourage flat floor plates in larger parking structures where future conversion may be practical.
d. Limit new curb cuts and driveways, encourage consolidated access, and preserve curb space for loading, transit, bicycle facilities, parklets, or other curb uses. e. Explore overnight parking permits in eligible public garages to create flexibility for nearby residential or mixed-use projects while maintaining City control over operations.
Current Policy Context
Local Policy Context
Over the past several years, Culver City has implemented several parking reform efforts, preceding the consideration of the implementation of parking maximums:
• Citywide Removal of Minimums (2022): Culver City abolished all minimum parking requirements citywide, becoming the first LA County city to do so. During the June 27, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council discussed the various parking and mobility concepts presented by staff and directed staff to prepare a draft Zoning Code Amendment to eliminate the minimum required parking and revise bicycle parking standards, loading standards, and standards for automated parking/parking stackers. In addition, the City Council expressed a desire to establish parking maximums and instructed that the subject be referred to the Mobility, Transportation, and Parking Subcommittee for discussion and consideration, and to provide further direction to staff. • General Plan 2045 (2024): The Mobility Element explicitly calls out the option to “set maximum parking requirements” (i.e., caps) as a tool—alongside significantly reducing or eliminating minimums—to cut vehicle trips, support shared parking, and prioritize multimodal access, especially in transit-oriented districts.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
4 • Ongoing Policy Development on Maximums (2025): On June 12, 2025, the Standing Mobility Subcommittee received a presentation from City staff on parking maximums, based on research conducted in 2022–2023. On November 19, 2025, staff returned with “Parking Maximums & Case Studies,” which describes strategies such as tiered maximums in districts/corridors, caps derived from former minimums, and combining maximums with on-street pricing. • Current Parking and TDM Requirements: Because Culver City no longer requires minimum off- street parking, developers may determine parking supply based on market, site, financing, and operational needs. The City’s current Transportation Demand Management requirements, adopted in 2000 and governed by Title 7, Chapter 7.05, apply to larger new nonresidential developments.
The City is in the process of updating its TDM ordinance.
State Policy Context
State legislation has also advanced parking reform by limiting where cities can require parking, encouraging unbundled and shared parking, streamlining EV charging approvals, and reducing parking ratios for qualifying housing projects. These laws provide important context for how Culver City can structure a parking maximums policy.
• AB 1317 (2023) – Parking unbundling: Requires certain newer residential properties with 16 or more units in specified counties, including Los Angeles County, to lease or sell parking separately from the dwelling unit lease. The law is intended to make parking costs more transparent and reduce the automatic bundling of parking into housing costs. • AB 894 (2023) – Shared parking agreements: Requires local agencies to accept and facilitate qualifying shared parking agreements for underutilized parking, helping excess parking supply serve nearby users or projects instead of requiring each site to supply all of its parking needs independently.
• AB 2097 (2022) – No minimums near transit: Prohibits local agencies from imposing minimum off- street parking requirements on most residential, commercial, and other development projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, while allowing developers to provide parking voluntarily. The law includes limited exceptions and allows local findings in narrow housing-related circumstances.
• State Density Bonus Law / AB 744 (2015) – Reduced parking ratios: Allows eligible housing projects to use reduced maximum parking ratios, with larger reductions for certain affordable, senior, supportive, or transit-proximate projects. These provisions limit the amount of parking a local agency may require for qualifying projects.
• AB 1236 (2015) – EV Charging Streamlining: Requires cities and counties to adopt expedited, streamlined permitting procedures for electric vehicle charging stations, including a streamlining ordinance and permit checklist. Later updates under AB 970 added binding review timelines and clarified that the review should be limited to health and safety requirements.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
5 Case Study Cities
Walker reviewed parking maximum policies in Santa Monica, Berkeley, and San Diego to understand how other California cities structure maximums, where they apply, and what flexibility or parking management tools accompany them. Table 1 summarizes the maximum parking policies for the case study cities.
Appendix D provides a more detailed review of each case study city.
Table 1: Case Study City Parking Maximum Policies
City Policy Summary
Santa
Monica
• Applies residential and nonresidential parking maximums citywide, with lower caps Downtown. • Outside Downtown, minimum parking ratios generally function as maximums, with flexibility to exceed by the greater of 2 spaces or 5 percent.
• Larger exceedances require a Conditional Use Permit with findings related to multimodal access, circulation, urban design, screening, and ensuring parking is not the principal use.
Berkeley • Applies residential maximums of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit near major transit stops and along major transit corridors.
• Allows additional parking through an Administrative Use Permit when need -based findings are met, such as when permitted parking, transit service, or existing nearby on - and off-street parking cannot satisfy the apparent demand, or when anticipated resident s have disability, health, safety, or reasonable-accommodation needs requiring additional off-street parking.
San Diego • Applies a 1-space-per-unit residential maximum in Downtown San Diego. • Allows some Downtown residential exceedances when projects meet standards related to FAR, EV charging, transportation amenities, underground parking, and active transportation fees. • Applies maximum permitted parking ratios to nonresidential development; ratios vary by zone/planned district and use category.
• Allows nonresidential projects to exceed the maximum through a Neighborhood Development Permit, up to 125 percent of the otherwise permitted maximum.
Key takeaways for Culver City
• Case study cities generally apply parking maximums in a context-sensitive way, with stronger limits in Downtown, transit-rich, or managed districts rather than relying on one uniform citywide approach.
• Each city pairs maximums with some form of flexibility, such as limited administrative exceedances, Administrative Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits, objective transportation- amenity standards, or Neighborhood Development Permits. • Parking maximums are most effective when paired with parking management and demand-side tools, including TDM, shared parking, parking pricing, unbundling, public or district parking, curb management, and permit parking restrictions.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
6 Data Analysis
Development Pipeline
Culver City publishes a monthly development pipeline listing housing and commercial projects currently under review. The reports include information on each project, including its type, status, the number of units or commercial square footage, and the number of parking spaces provided. The City provided Walker with all development pipeline reports from January 2025 to January 2026. Walker used these reports to determine the number of parking spaces being entitled in Culver City after parking minimums were eliminated in 2022. Walker reviewed the City’s 2025–2026 pipeline reports, identified 52 properties with parking data, and grouped them into four primary property types for this study: residential (22 projects), mixed-use (19 projects), office (9 projects), and stand-alone retail (1 project). See Appendix C for pipeline project maps.
Walker compared the parking provided in the pipeline to the minimum parking requirements in the former Culver City Zoning Code. Because Culver City eliminated minimum off-street parking requirements in 2022, Walker used the City’s prior parking minimums, as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Prior Culver City Minimum Parking Requirements (August 2022) Land Use / Component Former Minimum Requirement Used Analysis Assumption Residential: studios and
one-bedroom units
1 space per unit for units assumed to be 900
square feet or less
Studios and one-bedroom
units were assumed to be
900 square feet or less.
Residential: two- and three-
bedroom units
2 spaces per unit Applied based on the unit
bedroom count in the
pipeline data.
Residential: four-bedroom
units
3 spaces per unit Applied based on the unit
bedroom count in the
pipeline data.
Residential guest parking 1 guest space per 4 units Added to the residential requirement where
applicable.
Commercial uses 1 space per 350 square feet Applied to commercial square footage reported in
the pipeline data.
Source: Culver City Zoning Code Title 17, Article 3, Chapter 17.320, § 17.320.020, Table 3-3, “Parking Requirements by Land Use” (August 2022).
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
7 Of the 52 total properties reviewed, 12 properties exceeded the former Culver City parking minimums. As shown in Table 3, the projects that exceed the former minimums include a mix of residential, mixed-use, retail, and office developments.
Table 3: Pipeline Properties Where Proposed Parking Exceeds Former Zoning Code Requirement Property Address Type Residential
Units
Commercial
SF
Proposed
Spaces
Former
Zoning Code
Requirement
Spaces
Above
Former
Zoning Code
3434 Wesley St Mixed Use 15 14,364 69 64 +5 (8%)
12727 Washington
Blvd
Mixed Use 104 19,012 234 208 +26 (13%)
3817-3855
Watseka Ave
Office - 145,831 551 417 +134 (32%)
10301 Jefferson
Blvd
Office - 14,990 165 43 +122 (284%)
8631-8635 Hayden
Pl
Office - 244,000 752 697 +55 (8%)
8833 National Blvd Office - 167,000 478 477 +1 (0%)
4041 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 - 10 9 +1 (11%)
4095 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 - 10 9 +1 (11%)
4233 East Blvd Residential 4 - 10 9 +1 (11%)
3845 College Ave Residential 5 - 12 11 +1 (9%)
3906 Huron Ave Residential 5 - 12 11 +1 (9%)
3906 Tilden Ave Residential 5 - 12 11 +1 (9%)
1 Residential requirement assumes studios and 1-bedrooms are ≤900 SF: 1 space/unit; 2–3BR: 2 spaces/unit; 4BR: 3 spaces/unit; guest: 1 space/4 units.
2 Commercial requirement uses a ratio of 1 space/350 SF.
Former Culver City Zoning Code ratio obtained from: City of Culver City Zoning Code, Title 17, Article 3, Chapter 17.320, §17.320.020, Table 3-3, “Parking Requirements by Land Use” (August 2022).
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
8 Parking Counts
Walker conducted parking utilization counts at three parking facilities to assess current parking demand across different land-use types in Culver City. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the surveyed facilities and observed parking demand, showing that Culver Center and the Warner Lot were highly utilized, while Access Culver City had lower utilization. Despite its low utilization, Access Culver City had a high commercial parking ratio due to its fitness uses that can generate high parking demand.
Table 4: Surveyed Parking Facilities
Name Address Description
Warner
Lot
8511 Warner
Drive
Privately-owned, shared surface lot in the Hayden Tract Specific Plan Area.
The parking lot serves multiple tenant spaces in the Hayden Tract area.
Culver
Center
3851
Overland
Ave
Shopping center serving a variety of anchor and small tenants, including Best Buy, Ralphs, and LA Fitness.
215,046 SF occupied square feet in Culver Center.1
Access
Culver
City
8770
Washington
Blvd
Mixed-use development across from Ivy Station. 115 residential units, 33,040 SF commercial space (only 11,800 SF was occupied - 2 fitness studios and 1 bank). 1 Square footage from the Culver City Resolution No. CCRA 78-142 2 Per listing on Regency website: https://www.regencycenters.com/property/detail/80037/Culver-Center Counts were conducted during representative weekday and weekend daytime periods to capture peak parking activity by land use, including weekday office demand, weekend shopping center demand, and mixed-use residential/commercial demand. The Access Culver City count was coordinated with property access because the parking structure has restricted access, and the count reflects the only time available for collection.
Table 5: Observed Parking Supply and Demand
Name Parking
Supply Parking Demand Parking
Utilization3
Observed
Parking Ratio
Warner
Lot 168
Tues, April 14 at 10 a.m. - 137
Tues, April 14 at 2 p.m. - 153
Thurs, April 16 at 11 a.m. - 115
91% N/A2
Culver
Center 728
Sat, April 11 at 11 a.m. - 531
Sat April 11 at 12:30 p.m. - 518
Tues, April 14 at 12 p.m. - 492
Tues, April 14 at 1 p.m. - 487
73%1 2.47
cars/1,000SF
Access
Culver
City
346 Wed, April 22 at 11 a.m.: 169
106 commercial demand, 63 residential demand 49%
Commercial
ratio: 8.98
spaces/1,000SF
1 129 of the 728 spaces are in the rooftop parking lot above Best Buy, which had only 6 vehicles parked during the counts. The rest of the parking facility was highly utilized (88% utilization). 2 Parking facility is one of many in the Hayden Tract. Could not determine the specific parking ratio for the property. 3 Indicates the highest utilization observed among the counts conducted.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
9 Downtown Public Parking Utilization
Walker recently analyzed parking data for a separate Downtown Parking Rate Study for the City of Culver City. The study included an evaluation of the current inventory and utilization of Downtown parking garages and on-street parking meters. Walker collected parking utilization data over two days in November 2025:
one weekday and one Saturday. Counts were conducted every two hours between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. for a total of 14 counts. Table 6 summarizes the average utilization in each structure. This downtown parking data is relevant to the parking maximum study, which evaluates the extent to which public parking facilities could accommodate additional demand generated by off-street parking maximums.
Table 6: Downtown Public Parking Garage Utilization
Parking
Facility Hours of Operation Parking
Rates
Peak
Utilization
(Time/Day)
Average
Utilization
(Across 14
Counts)
Peak
Utilization
Parking
Inventory
Empty
Spaces
at Peak
Cardiff Mon–Thu: 8 a.m.–2 a.m.
Fri–Sat: 8 a.m.–3 a.m.
Sun: 8 a.m.–1 a.m.
1st hour free
$1 per 30
min. after
the first hour
$12 daily
max
8 p.m.
Weekday
and
Saturday
38% 62% 394 150
Watseka Mon–Thu: 8 a.m.–2
a.m.; Fri–Sat: 8 a.m.–3
a.m.; Sun: 8 a.m.–1 a.m.
12 p.m.
Weekday 26% 43% 366 209
Ince Mon–Thu: 8 a.m.–2
a.m.; Fri–Sat: 8 a.m.–3
a.m.; Sun: 8 a.m.–1 a.m.
12 p.m.
Weekday 40% 52% 763 366
Culver
Steps1
Mon–Sun: 6 a.m.–2 a.m. 6 p.m.
Saturday 70% 100% 281 0
Total 1,079 725
1 In Level P2, without retail validation, rates are: first hour - $7; every 30 minutes after first hour - $1; daily max $19 Stakeholder Feedback Summary
Walker and City staff held two stakeholder focus group discussions to understand how parking maximums could affect private development, business operations, leasing, financing, accessibility, and transportation outcomes in Culver City. The May 20, 2026, focus group primarily included local developers and architects, while the July 9, 2026, focus group included local business owners and brokers. The groups were held separately so each audience could discuss the parking issues most relevant to its role in the development and business environment, including project feasibility, leasing and financing considerations, customer and employee access, and day-to-day operations. The meetings also gathered feedback on parking trends, local access conditions, lender and tenant expectations, business and property owner concerns, and potential mitigation strategies that could provide flexibility within a parking maximum framework.
Table 7 summarizes key themes from the focus groups; see Appendix C for meeting attendees, discussion notes, and additional detail.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
10 Table 7: Summary of Focus Group Feedback
Category Stakeholder Feedback
Market and
development
feasibility
• Stakeholders supported the removal of minimum parking requirements because it allows projects to right-size parking based on market conditions and site constraints. • Participants expressed concern that rigid maximums could become a new constraint and possible disincentive for developers to locate in Culver City, and they may potentially make projects financially unfeasible or make retail space difficult to rent if they prevent projects from meeting lender, tenant, lease-up, refinancing, or long-term asset-value expectations. • Developers noted they are already financially incentivized to avoid overbuilding parking because parking is expensive and space-intensive.
Variable
parking
needs
• Parking demand varies by land use, unit type, tenant type, market segment, and location, so a one-size-fits-all maximum may not be productive.
• Stakeholders noted different expectations for smaller units, larger or family -sized units, for-sale housing, affordable housing, office, restaurant, gym, retail, and mixed -use projects. • Commercial properties may need flexibility to accommodate future changes in tenancy and different peak-parking profiles.
Uncertain
future
demand
• Stakeholders noted uncertainty around long-term parking demand, including future changes in travel behavior, shared mobility, and autonomous vehicles. • Developers and architects noted that conversion-ready parking, including flat floor plates, can add high cost and may be feasible only for larger or site -specific projects. • Participants are encouraged to review parking design standards, including stall dimensions, drive aisles, tandem spaces, lifts, stackers, and alternative configurations, so that projects can meet parking demand efficiently.
Driving
remains the
main mode
of travel in
Culver City.
• Stakeholders noted that transit passes, bicycle facilities, shared mobility, and other TDM measures are in place and help reduce demand but do not eliminate baseline parking needs for many residents, employees, and customers.
• Regional commute patterns, late or unusual work hours, and limited alternatives in some corridors mean driving remains the primary mode for many trips in, to, and from Culver City. • Participants emphasized that less private parking must be paired with reliable public or district parking, shared parking, active curb management, enforcement, wayfinding, and multimodal investments.
• Stakeholders also emphasized that accessible parking should be protected through convenient ADA-compliant supply, placement, drop-off/loading access, and enforcement.
Strategies
stakeholders
said would
reduce
parking
demand.
• Stakeholders identified better bus service as one of the most important ways to reduce driving, including shorter wait times, more reliable service, and improved perceptions of safety. • Participants noted that the Downtown Circulator would be more effective in reducing auto trips if it operated more frequently, ran later than 8:00 p.m., circulated into nearby neighborhoods, and reached destinations such as Trader Joe’s.
• Stakeholders suggested that an e-bike share system could help people circulate within Culver City and support a “park once” approach.
• Participants identified alternatives to strict maximums, including limiting surface parking, reducing oversized stall and drive aisle dimensions, allowing tandem parking, and considering on-street parking permits for small commercial businesses in permit d istricts.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
11 Benefits and Considerations of Parking
Maximums
Table 8 summarizes key benefits and considerations of parking maximums based on a review of Culver City parking data, conversations with stakeholders, and other parking maximum policies.
Table 8: Benefits and Considerations of Parking Maximums Benefits Considerations
• Prevent oversupply: Establishes an upper
limit on how much parking can be built,
helping avoid large, underutilized parking
facilities.
• Reduce development costs: Frees up
land, building area, and frontage for more
productive uses such as housing,
commercial space, open space, or active
ground-floor uses.
• Improve urban design: Limits large
surface lots, excessive driveway access,
inactive frontages, and parking-dominated
site plans.
• Use existing supply efficiently: Supports
shared parking, district parking, public
parking, and better use of underutilized
spaces.
• Complement demand-management
tools: Supports TDM, parking pricing,
unbundling, and curb management by
reducing the amount of new private parking
added to the system.
• Support long-term land use flexibility:
Reduces the risk of locking valuable land or
building area into parking infrastructure
that may become less useful over time.
• Reinforce climate and mode-shift goals:
Avoids new excess parking supply and
supports a broader transition toward
multimodal access.
• Reduce environmental impacts: Can
reduce impervious surface, stormwater
runoff, and heat island impacts when
paired with surface parking coverage limits,
landscaping, or permeable-surface
standards.
• Supply-side focus: Parking maximums regulate how much parking can be built; they do not directly manage parking demand, pricing, use, enforcement, or curb operations.
• Regulatory approach: Maximums are more of a regulatory “stick” than an incentive-based “carrot” for reducing VMT and car ownership; without complementary tools or investments in more extensive transit options and resources, a cap may limit supply without meaningfully changing travel behavior.
• Market feasibility: Parking demand and market expectations remain important to lenders, tenants, residents, and customers, and overly restrictive maximums could affect financing, lease -up, commercial leasing, and project feasibility.
• Existing cost incentives: Developers are already incentivized to minimize parking where feasible because parking is expensive to build and consumes valuable site area; a maximum may provide limited added benefit where the market already discourages overbuilding.
• Spillover risk: If private parking is capped without district parking, curb management, enforcement, and pricing, demand may spill over into nearby streets, public facilities, or residential neighborhoods.
• Equity and accessibility: Maximums should be evaluated for impacts on people with disabilities, lower-income workers, caregivers, shift workers, and others who may still rely on driving. • Administrative complexity: A relief pathway can preserve flexibility, but it requires clear standards, staff capacity, review criteria, predictable fees, and transparent decision -making. • Affordable housing conflicts: Parking maximums may conflict with affordable housing funding, underwriting, or scoring criteria when those programs expect or reward a certain level of parking supply.
• Limited effect without pricing: Maximums may have limited effect if parking remains free or underpriced, because drivers may continue to own vehicles and drive even when a new private parking supply is capped.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
12 Parking Maximums Best Practices
1. Set ratios based on market conditions and
project context.
When setting the maximum ratio, the City should account for development feasibility and broader market conditions. Development has faced many challenges in recent years, including COVID-19, the growth of remote work, rising costs of land, labor, and building materials, and high interest rates for project financing. A ratio that is too low may make it harder for developers to secure financing and limit development potential. At the same time, a ratio that is too high would result in the policy having little impact on parking.
Supporting Findings from the Study
• Development pipeline data:
o Overall, very few residential developments in Culver City’s development pipeline are providing less than 1 parking space per unit.
o Projects with fewer than 10 units, even when near a major transit stop, are building more than 2 parking spaces per unit. Many of these smaller developments are 3+ bedroom townhouses, which developers cite may be difficult to sell without two parking spaces. o Parking demand varies based on residential unit size and type. For example, a studio apartment is expected to generate less demand than a 3-bedroom apartment. o Per the City’s development pipeline, commercial projects have parking ratios ranging from 1 to 11 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. This wide range is largely due to the varying commercial uses, ranging from medical offices to restaurants to studios.
• Stakeholder Feedback
o In areas with high land values, developers are already incentivized to build smaller units due to higher revenue per square foot. Flat, per‑unit parking maximums can unintentionally reinforce this incentive by failing to account for household size and parking demand.
Without unit‑type or bedroom‑based flexibility, low parking caps may make it difficult to deliver family‑sized units, particularly in for‑sale or auto‑dependent housing markets. o Since the pandemic, the office and retail markets have not fully recovered and still struggle with high vacancies. Office and retail tenants often require a certain number of parking spaces to lease space. Setting a cap too low for commercial space can lead to storefront vacancies.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
13 2. Provide a clear administrative relief pathway.
Design parking maximums so they can be exceeded through clear, objective, administratively reviewable standards. For example, allow projects to exceed the maximum by up to 10 percent through an Administrative Use Permit or similar staff-level administrative review process with specified conditions.
The City could require an associated application or impact fee and use fee revenue to offset review costs or support TDM, curb management, or parking management programs.
Consider coordinating any relief standards with the City’s TDM ordinance update and the implementation strategies summarized later in this memo, rather than creating separate or conflicting requirements.
Consider prioritizing flexibility mechanisms that reduce the impacts of additional parking supply, such as shared parking, public access to parking, priced or unbundled parking, district parking management, transportation demand management, and adaptable parking design.
Supporting Findings from the Study
• Case study cities use different relief mechanisms: For example, Santa Monica allows minor exceedance of maximums administratively, and Berkeley allows additional residential parking near transit through an Administrative Use Permit when specific need-based findings are met. • Data collection also supports the need for flexibility: 13 of the 52 pipeline projects reviewed—more than one-quarter—would exceed a maximum based on the former Culver City Zoning Code minimums
• Stakeholders indicated that projects may need flexibility to address leasing, financing, tenant, accessibility, and operational needs.
3. Apply maximums where supporting
conditions exist.
Culver City should consider prioritizing maximums in areas with high-frequency transit, walkable access to daily needs, public or district parking capacity, active curb management, shared parking opportunities, and enforceable TDM or pricing programs rather than applying the same standard uniformly in all contexts.
Supporting Findings from the Study
• Stakeholders emphasized that reduced private parking should be paired with reliable public or district parking, shared parking, active curb management, enforcement, wayfinding, and multimodal investments so parking maximums are applied where the surrounding system can help absorb demand.
• Case study cities suggest that parking maximums are most appropriate in locations where reduced private parking can be supported by strong access and parking management conditions:
o Santa Monica: Applies lower parking maximums Downtown, where public parking, paid parking, shared parking, parking operations plans, and TDM requirements help manage demand.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
14 o Berkeley: Focuses residential maximums near major transit stops and along transit corridors, pairing the cap with TDM requirements, unbundling, demand-based curb pricing, residential permit parking restrictions, and shared/off-site parking tools. o San Diego: Applies a Downtown residential maximum and citywide nonresidential maximums in base zones and planned districts where the City’s parking regulations apply, with nonresidential ratios varying by zone/planned district and use category. Flexibility is tied to transportation amenities, underground parking, EV charging, shared parking, unbundling, transportation fees, and a permit process for nonresidential exceedances.
4. Include a review clause to monitor policy
outcomes.
The City should consider including a formal review clause requiring staff to evaluate the parking maximums policy within 3 to 5 years of implementation and periodically thereafter. The review should determine whether the policy is meeting its intended goals, whether it is creating unintended effects, and whether the maximum ratios, applicability areas, or relief process should be adjusted. Because parking maximums regulate parking supply rather than demand or management, the review should consider both parking outcomes and broader mobility, development, and curb-management conditions.
The first review should focus on two core questions: whether the maximums are changing how parking is used, and whether they are affecting the feasibility of new development. Parking utilization and development feasibility should be treated as the primary early indicators because they show whether the policy is reducing excess supply without creating spillover, access, financing, or leasing challenges.
Key factors to evaluate
• Parking utilization: Monitor on-street spaces, public parking facilities, private shared facilities, and representative development sites to determine whether parking is underutilized, constrained, or spilling over into adjacent neighborhoods.
• Development feasibility: Track development pipeline activity, project approvals, variance or relief requests, stalled or withdrawn applications, commercial and residential vacancies, and applicant feedback to understand whether the maximums are affecting project feasibility or tenant interest. • Transportation outcomes: Review transit ridership, TDM compliance, parking unbundling outcomes, shared mobility use, bicycle parking utilization, and other indicators that show whether complementary demand-management tools are reducing vehicle trips. • Curb and neighborhood impacts: Evaluate loading activity, curb conflicts, residential permit parking demand, enforcement issues, customer access, and spillover parking complaints to determine whether reduced private parking is shifting impacts to public streets. • Equity and accessibility: Assess whether the policy is preserving practical access for people with disabilities, lower-income workers, caregivers, shift workers, and others who may rely on driving, including the adequacy and placement of accessible parking and loading areas. • Adjustment triggers: Identify clear thresholds for policy refinement, such as consistently high utilization of public or on-street parking, repeated relief requests for certain land uses, evidence of Culver City Parking Maximums Study
15 commercial leasing impacts, underutilized private parking supply, or persistent spillover complaints.
Supporting Findings from the Study
• Because most peer parking maximum policies have been implemented relatively recently, available outcome data remains limited, making a formal review clause important for tracking real- world effects after adoption.
• Culver City’s parking counts and Downtown public parking data show that utilization varies by facility, location, land use, and time of day, so ongoing monitoring would help identify whether maximums are reducing excess parking or creating localized constraints. • The development pipeline review and stakeholder feedback also indicate that the City should monitor relief requests, leasing or financing concerns, spillover complaints, and public parking utilization to determine whether ratios or applicability areas need adjustment.
5. Consider complementary code updates
Parking maximums are only one strategy for limiting the impacts of excess parking. Culver City can also use the strategies summarized in Table 9 as baseline code updates, conditions for projects seeking relief from a development standard, or complementary tools that reduce parking impacts.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
16 Table 9: Other Policies to Limit Excess Parking Impacts Strategy Existing Code Requirement Implementation Details Limit
surface
parking
coverage
on a lot.
• Culver City does not currently
establish a maximum percentage of a
lot that may be covered by surface
parking.
• Requires two or more visual-impact-
reduction strategies and limits paving
within required street-facing
setbacks. §§ 17.320.035.L and
17.210.020.
• Adopt a maximum surface parking coverage
standard for larger lots or certain development
types.
• In larger Oregon jurisdictions, for land uses with
more than 65,000 SF of floor area, surface parking
may not exceed the building floor area. In contrast,
tuck-under, underground, subsurface, and
structured parking may be exempt. OAR 660-012-
0415(1)(c)–(d).
Review
parking
dimension
standards.
• Current requirements are included in
§ 17.320.035.C.1.
• The Director may grant an
Administrative Modification, allowing
up to a 10% decrease in minimum
parking lot and loading dimensions,
such as aisle, driveway, and space
widths. § 17.550.020.A, Table 5-2.
• Review stall dimensions, aisle widths, back-up
distances, and compact and tandem space
standards.
• Identify targeted code adjustments that reduce the
parking footprint.
• Maintain safety, accessibility, circulation,
emergency access, and Public Works requirements.
Encourage
flat floor
plates.
• Culver City does not currently require
flat floor plates for parking structures.
• Parking structures must be screened,
wrapped, landscaped, or
architecturally treated. §
17.320.035.O.
• Use flat floor plates as a potential condition for
projects seeking to exceed the adopted parking
maximum or other development standard.
• Focus on larger parking structures where future
conversion may be practical.1
Limit curb
cuts and
driveways.
• Parking areas must be designed so
that access occurs only at designated
access drives, and the code
establishes driveway-width
requirements.
• No explicit maximum number of curb
cuts per lot. §§ 17.320.035.A and
17.320.040.
• Limit new curb cuts and encourage consolidated
driveways, especially on pedestrian-oriented
frontages, near transit, or where alley access is
available.
• Public Works would need to evaluate driveway
location, spacing, width, pedestrian conflicts, curb-
space impacts, emergency/loading access, and
circulation.
• San Francisco encourages joint-use driveways and
requires driveway access to be designed to minimize
the width and frequency of curb cuts; new curb cuts
are discouraged on pedestrian- and transit-oriented
streets and where rear alley access is available.
Allow
overnight
parking in
Public
Garages.
• City Council may designate the hours
during which City-controlled parking
lots are open. § 7.03.230.C.
• The City’s parking regulations also
address public parking facilities and
related parking controls. §§
7.03.230.C and 17.320.015.A.
• Allow overnight parking permits in City-owned
parking structures, excluding City Hall.
• Use overnight permits to create additional flexibility for nearby residential or mixed-use projects while
maintaining City control over eligible facilities,
permit rules, hours, and operations.
• Santa Monica and Berkeley both offer overnight
parking options in public garages.
• Would require an amendment with Culver City’s
parking operator.
1 Note that flat floor plates can add significant project cost.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
17 Appendix A – Development Pipeline Summary
Project Type Office SF Retail SF Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Total Units
Proposed
Spaces
Code
Reqt
Exceeds
Code?
3556 Helms Ave Residential 2 2 4 4 No
8902 Hubbard St Residential 2 2 4 4 No
4044 Madison Ave Residential 3 3 6 6 No
3826 Girard Ave Residential 4 4 9 9 No
3846 Bentley Ave Residential 4 4 9 9 No
3907 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 4 0 9 No
3955 Bentley Ave Residential 4 4 6 9 No
3434 Wesley St Mixed Use 12,264 2,100 5 6 4 15 69 64 Yes 4046 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 4 6 9 No
4051 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 8 14 No
12727 Washington Blvd Mixed Use 0 19,012 20 60 24 104 234 208 Yes 10808-10860 Culver Blvd Mixed Use 0 0 4 2 6 26 10 Yes 3817-3855 Watseka Ave Office 145,831 0 551 417 Yes 10301 Jefferson Blvd Office 14,990 0 165 43 Yes
8631-8635 Hayden Pl Office 244,000 0 752 697 Yes
4030 La Salle Ave Residential 1 6 7 6 15 No
4044 Lincoln Ave Residential 1 6 7 6 15 No
3336-3340 Helms Ave Residential 6 2 8 18 18 No
4051-4055 Jackson Ave Residential 9 9 20 20 No
4069-4073 Madison Ave Residential 2 10 17 31 No
11304-11310 Culver Blvd Residential 88 88 10 110 No 5730 Uplander Way Residential 6 227 54 287 385 413 No 5700 Hannum Ave Mixed Use 0 5,600 39 180 90 309 428 492 No 11111 Jefferson Blvd Mixed Use 0 2,000 51 175 118 344 502 554 No 100 Corporate Pt Mixed Use 0 6,825 73 139 120 19 351 524 598 No 10950 Washington Blvd Mixed Use 0 14,087 90 241 177 508 715 852 No Culver City Parking Maximums Study
18 Project Type Office SF Retail SF Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed Total Units
Proposed
Spaces
Code
Reqt
Exceeds
Code?
6201-6299 Bristol Pkwy Mixed Use 0 11,406 164 408 235 39 846 1,201 1,365 No 5757 Uplander Way Mixed Use 0 5,772 145 644 288 1,077 1,303 1,650 No 8833 National Blvd Office 167,000 0 478 477 Yes
12337-12473 Washington Blvd Retail 0 13,700 127 39 Yes 4041 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 4 10 9 Yes
3592-3620 Eastham Dr Office 43,876 0 49 125 No
4095 Sawtelle Blvd Residential 4 4 10 9 Yes
5813-5835 Washington Blvd Office 46,309 0 82 132 No 5880 Adams Blvd Office 48,906 0 67 140 No
8432 Steller Dr Office 29,390 0 41 84 No
8570 National Blvd Mixed Use 30,032 4,483 91 99 No 4233 East Blvd Residential 4 4 10 9 Yes
8960 Washington Blvd Mixed Use 63,639 0 182 182 No 3845 College Ave Residential 5 5 12 11 Yes
4464 Sepulveda Blvd Mixed Use 0 0 0 45 25 25 95 90 199 No 11281 Washington Pl Mixed Use 0 1,606 10 65 10 0 85 13 121 No 13474-13476 Washington Blvd Mixed Use 0 1,868 4 2 9 0 15 9 33 No 4315-4321 Sepulveda Blvd Mixed Use 0 2,847 0 2 15 3 20 37 51 No 3906 Huron Ave Residential 5 5 12 11 Yes
9763 Culver Blvd Mixed Use 0 2,724 34 0 0 0 34 0 51 No
3906 Tilden Ave Residential 5 5 12 11 Yes
3727 Robertson Blvd Mixed Use 5,045 1,685 0 0 12 0 12 22 46 No 11828 Washington Blvd Mixed Use 0 0 26 40 12 0 78 110 139 No 3739 Robertson Blvd Mixed Use 0 1,325 4 8 10 0 22 1 42 No 4340 Overland Ave Mixed Use 3,126 1,007 33 53 53 No 3550 Hayden Ave Office 14,996 0 23 43 No
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
19 Appendix B - Development Pipeline Maps
This page is intentionally left blank.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
20 Appendix C – Stakeholder Meeting Notes
Culver City Developer Focus Group – 5/20/2026
Key Takeaways
Removal of minimum parking requirements is widely viewed as beneficial • Participants generally indicated that eliminating minimum parking requirements has improved project planning by allowing applicants to size parking supply based on site context, market conditions, and operational needs, instead of complying with a fixed ratio. • Participants noted that due to the high cost of parking, eliminating minimum requirements allowed them to right-size parking for developments based on market conditions and avoid unnecessary costs from overbuilding parking.
• Implication for the study: Developers want to meet the market demand for parking to avoid unnecessary costs effectively. Maximum parking policies should be evaluated as a potential new constraint and assessed for unintended feasibility impacts relative to the flexibility gained from removing minimums.
Under-parking can create practical lease-up and operations challenges. • Participants described examples in which lower parking provision (e.g., 0.7 spaces per unit in a multifamily context) contributed to lease-up friction once parking supply was filled, and prospective residents were reluctant to give up their vehicle. This was observed at sites with transportation demand management amenities, such as transit passes and secure bike rooms. • Common mitigation approaches—targeting car-free households, offering financial concessions, or arranging off-site parking—were described as available but limited in effectiveness and scalability.
It took significant time to identify these mitigation approaches, which left units vacant. • Implication for the study: Parking caps should be tested against real-world property management outcomes (lease-up, turnover, guest parking, spillover) in addition to policy objectives.
Market expectations for parking remain influential across office and commercial uses. • Participants emphasized that, for many office and commercial tenants, parking availability is a key consideration and may affect whether prospective tenants will even evaluate a site. • Participants referenced a minimum of 3-5/1,000 for commercial and 1 space per unit, 1 space per bedroom for residential.
• Participants also noted that owners often seek sufficient parking to maintain flexibility across tenant types and to support future changes in tenancy or use. • Participants noted that a maximum policy may result in additional variance requests. • Implication for the study: A cap would need a context-sensitive approach (e.g., varying by land use, district, or proximity to managed public parking), rather than a uniform citywide cap.
Financing and refinancing considerations are central to feasibility, especially for office. • Participants indicated that parking supply can be closely tied to underwriting assumptions, lease value, and the ability to refinance, and that reduced parking can increase perceived risk for lenders and investors.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
21 • Participants noted that parking is a main factor in determining the project’s value. If parking is not market-based, it will make financing more difficult and expensive, potentially price a deal out of the market if the market won’t support it, and make the market exit unreliable. • Implication for the study: Evaluate how maximums could affect feasibility through a capital markets lens (e.g., lender requirements by product type; whether shared or district parking arrangements can satisfy underwriting expectations).
Transit access and TDM programs help, but commute trips are still frequently auto-oriented • Participants reported that even in transit-rich contexts where projects implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures, many employees and residents continue to drive— particularly for regional commutes. Employees may work from home and drive only on certain days of the week, but still drive to work. Once at work, employees may walk, bike, or ride transit to meetings, but still require parking.
• Implication for the study: If parking maximums are intended to reduce driving, they may be most effective when paired with strong district parking management and measurable TDM strategies, rather than relying on caps alone.
Accessible parking and disability access must be explicitly protected. • Participants highlighted the importance of maintaining convenient, accessible parking for people with disabilities and ensuring that parking policy changes do not inadvertently reduce practical access to destinations.
• Implication for the study: Any maximum framework should include clear expectations for ADA- compliant supply, placement, and operational access (e.g., distribution of accessible stalls, drop- off/loading functionality, and enforcement).
Shared parking and managed district supply were identified as key complements to any cap. • Participants described the potential role of shared parking. They emphasized that limiting private parking may require reliable public/district parking options, particularly in mixed-use areas with different peak demands by use (e.g., office versus restaurant/retail). • Participants also noted practical constraints in shared parking implementation, including lease terms and the importance of maintaining operational control over spaces. • Implication for the study: The City should evaluate maximums alongside tools that improve shared/district parking viability (e.g., standardized agreement templates, signage/wayfinding, enforcement, pricing, and time limits).
Designing parking for future conversion is a promising risk-management strategy. • Participants expressed interest in conversion-ready parking—particularly above-grade parking—so that space can transition to other uses over time if travel behavior changes or as land values increase.
• Participants have seen this strategy employed for conversion to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). • Participants raised questions about whether existing design requirements (e.g., ramps, structural grids, floorplate slopes/heights, frontage placement) facilitate or inhibit such conversions. • Implication for the study: Consider design guidance or incentives for adaptability (e.g., flat floor plates, appropriate floor-to-floor heights, and structural capacity) to avoid “stranded” parking supply.
Current parking design and dimensional standards can materially affect feasibility.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
22 • Participants identified that ratios do not solely determine parking supply; it is also shaped by dimensional and design requirements (e.g., stall/aisle widths, landscaping buffers, and layout constraints).
• Participants noted that flexibility for solutions such as tandem spaces, lifts/stackers, and alternative configurations may help projects meet demand efficiently. • Implication for the study: If maximums are considered, include a parallel review of parking design standards to ensure the regulatory framework does not unintentionally limit feasible, space- efficient parking approaches.
Affordable housing projects have additional funding and feasibility considerations. • Participants indicated that affordable housing projects often face distinct constraints and that some public funding programs may reward applications that include more parking, creating tension with strict caps.
• Participants also described that car ownership can remain significant even in income-restricted projects, depending on location and household needs.
• Implication for the study: Consider targeted exemptions or administrative relief pathways for affordable housing (or specific affordability programs), potentially tied to demonstrated site context, transit access, shared parking options, or operational TDM measures.
Parking pricing and unbundling are increasingly common, but outcomes vary by submarket. • Participants discussed unbundling (charging for parking separately from rents) as an emerging practice, with results dependent on neighborhood context and market conditions. • Participants also noted that parking prices tend to correlate with convenience and scarcity of parking supply.
• Implication for the study:
• Evaluate unbundling and pricing as complementary demand-management tools, while recognizing that they may not eliminate baseline parking needs for certain households and trip types. • Having a scarcity of parking can exacerbate housing affordability when unbundled projects have to charge higher parking prices due to the high demand for spaces.
Maximums may be most feasible in a specific plan or large-campus contexts with robust management.
• Participants referenced examples where maximums are used as part of a broader entitlement and management framework to provide community assurance about buildout intensity and spillover effects. Participants provided an example in which maximums were set as part of a development agreement, informed by a market-based parking study, to mitigate long-term traffic. • Implication for the study: Maximums may function differently (and more predictably) when paired with area-specific mobility strategies, monitoring, and enforcement, such as in large planned developments or specific plan areas.
Culver City Business Focus Group – 7/9/2026
Key Takeaways
Businesses and property owners generally viewed parking maximums as a potential constraint.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
23 • Participants noted that developers already have a financial incentive to avoid overbuilding parking because parking is costly, space-intensive, and does not directly generate revenue. • Participants emphasized that developers and property owners typically size parking to meet operational, tenant, leasing, and investment needs rather than to exceed what the property can support.
• Implication for the study: Parking maximums should be evaluated as a potential new constraint and compared against market-based parking decisions that already discourage unnecessary parking supply.
Parking needs vary significantly by corridor, block, tenant, and land use. • Participants emphasized that one parking standard is unlikely to work across Culver City because access conditions, tenant needs, customer behavior, and available public parking differ substantially by area.
• West Washington, Jefferson, Downtown, and the Arts District were described as having different parking constraints, transit access, and business operating conditions. • Implication for the study: Any maximum policy should be context-sensitive and should avoid a uniform citywide standard that does not account for local access conditions.
Under-parking can affect leasing, vacancies, and neighborhood spillover. • Participants noted that insufficient parking can make commercial space difficult to lease when tenants, employees, customers, or service needs require reliable access. • Participants cited concerns that under-parked residential and commercial projects can shift demand into nearby neighborhoods, especially where on-street parking is already managed through residential permit programs.
• Implication for the study: Parking maximums should be paired with a clear analysis of spillover, vacancy risk, tenant needs, and curb or permit management tools.
Transit, shared mobility, and e-bikes help reduce some trips, but do not eliminate baseline parking needs.
• Participants noted that bus service, rail access, rideshare, biking, and e-bike share can support mode shift. However, many employees, customers, and visitors still rely on driving for late hours, regional trips, safety concerns, or access to areas with limited alternatives. • Participants supported strategies that help people park once and circulate within Culver City by walking, biking, e-bike share, or other local mobility options. • Implication for the study: Maximums should be considered alongside stronger mobility, wayfinding, public parking, and district management strategies rather than as a stand-alone demand-reduction tool.
Residential and commercial permit tools may provide targeted flexibility. • Participants discussed residential permit districts as both a response to spillover and a potential barrier for under-parked commercial properties where employees or small businesses need limited street access.
• Participants suggested that paid commercial or employee permits could provide a narrow tool for small businesses in permit areas, if designed carefully. • Implication for the study: Curb management and permit policy should be reviewed as part of any maximum framework, particularly for small commercial tenants and mixed-use corridors.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
24 Parking design and surface parking limits may be more effective than strict caps in some contexts. • Participants expressed interest in limiting open-to-sky surface parking, noting that large surface lots are difficult to justify given land values and competing land use needs. • Participants also identified parking dimension flexibility, smaller stalls or backup aisles, tandem parking, stackers, and alternative configurations as potential ways to reduce parking impacts without reducing functional access.
• Implication for the study: The City should consider complementary code updates that address parking form, design, and land consumption in addition to—or instead of—numeric maximums.
Conversion-ready parking is promising but may be costly and site-specific • Participants discussed flat floor plates and convertible parking as a way to reduce long-term risk if parking demand changes over time.
• Participants also noted that conversion-ready parking can add cost, increase circulation requirements, and may be more feasible on larger sites than on smaller Culver City parcels. • Implication for the study: Adaptable parking design may be most appropriate as a targeted condition or incentive for larger projects, rather than a universal requirement.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
25 Appendix D - Case Study Cities
Summary of Case Study City Parking Maximums
Santa Monica
Key Findings
• The Downtown Community Plan (2017) established downtown parking maximums to promote multi-modal transportation, housing development, and shared parking.
City Applicability Residential Maximums (DU-
Dwelling Unit)
Non-residential Maximums
Santa
Monica
Maximums
Citywide
Downtown,
maximums
only, no
minimums
Outside
Downtown,
minimums
are the
maximums
Downtown
Market-rate:
Studio: 0.5/DU
1-BR: 0.5/DU
2+BR: 1.0/DU
Guest: 1/15DU
Affordable:
Studio: 0.25/DU
1-BR: 0.5/DU
2+BR: 0.5/DU
Guest: 1/30 DU
Outside
Downtown*
Market Rate:
Studio: 1/DU
1-BR: 1.5/DU
2+BR: 2/DU
Guest: 1/5DU
Affordable:
Studio:
0.5/DU
1-BR:
0.75/DU
2+BR: 1/DU
Guest:1/30D
U
Downtown
Restaurant – 2/1,000SF
Hotel Room- 0.5/room
Hotel meeting space –
4/1,000SF
Office – 2/1,000SF
Retail – 2/1,000SF
Outside Downtown
Restaurant – 5/1,000SF
Hotels - 1/room
Hotel meeting space –
5/1,000SF
Office – 3.3/1,000SF
Retail – 3.3/1,000SF
Berkeley Residential
maximums
near transit
Non-
Residential
maximums in
BART Mixed
Use District
0.25 mile from major transit stop or
along major transit corridor –
maximum of 0.5 spaces per DU
(does not differentiate based on
unit size/number of bedrooms)
None, except for on specific Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) property zoned (Residential BART Mixed Use
District), non‑residential uses are capped at
≤ 1.5/1,000SF
San Diego Residential
maximums in
Centre City
and Gas
Lamp
Planned
Districts
Non-
residential
maximums
are in place
citywide and
in the
Gaslamp
Downtown
1/DU
Gaslamp District
Hotel – 0.3/room
Retail – 1/1,000SF
Office – 1.5/1,000SF
Rest of City
Restaurant - 5.5-
25/1,000SF
Retail –
5.5-6.5/1,000SF
Office –
5.5-6.5/1,000SF
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
26 • City staff indicated that most new developments seek to build less than the maximum, limiting the impact of maximums.
• Maximums can impede changes of a higher intensity use (e.g., restaurant) to a lower intensity use (e.g., medical office) if the building is overparked.
Applicability of Maximums
• Downtown: There are no parking minimums; any parking that a project chooses to provide may not exceed the maximums.
• Outside Downtown: Where parking minimums still apply, the City caps any extra parking at the minimum + the greater of two spaces or 5% (i.e., “minimums function as maximums” with a small cushion).
Residential Parking Maximums
Santa Monica’s residential parking maximums vary by location (Downtown and the rest of the City) and by residential unit affordability (market-rate and affordable). The maximum parking ratios are summarized below.
Downtown
Market-rate dwelling units:
• Studio units = 0.5 space/unit
• 1 bedroom units = 0.5 space/unit
• 2+ bedroom units = 1 space per unit
• Guest parking = 1 space for every 15 units
Affordable dwelling units:
• Studio units = 0.25 space/unit
• 1 bedroom units = 0.25 space/unit
• 2+ bedroom units = 0.5 space per unit
• Guest parking = 1 space for every 30 units
Outside Downtown
Market-rate dwelling units:
• Studio units = 1 space/unit
• 1 bedroom units = 1.5 spaces/unit
• 2+ bedroom units = 2 spaces per unit
• Guest parking = 1 space for every 5 units
Affordable dwelling units:
• Studio units = 0.5 space/unit
• 1 bedroom units = 0.75 space/unit
• 2+ bedroom units = 1 space per unit
Non-residential Parking Maximums
Santa Monica has non-residential parking maximums that vary by location.
Downtown (example land uses)
• Retail/Office/Restaurant: 2
spaces/1,000 SF.
• Hotel (rooms): 0.5 space/room; Meeting
space: 4/1,000 SF.
Outside Downtown (example land uses)
• Restaurant: 5 spaces/1,000 SF
• Hotel: 1 space/room; Meeting space:
5/1,000 SF
• Office/Retail: 3.3/1,000 SF
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
27 Maximum Flexibility
To exceed the Downtown parking maximum, applicants must apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the specific findings detailed in i. through v. listed below. If the project is located outside Downtown, applicants can exceed the parking maximum by more than 2 spaces or 5% (whichever is greater) by right.
To exceed the maximum by more than 2 spaces (or 5%), applicants must apply for a CUP with specific findings detailed in i. through v. listed below.
The Conditional Use Permit application must make the following findings:1 i. Parking provided in excess improves the pedestrian, transit, and bicycle network; ii. Vehicle movement on or around the project site associated with the excess parking does not unduly impact pedestrian spaces or movement, transit service, bicycle movement, or the overall traffic movement in the district;
iii. Accommodating excess parking does not degrade the overall urban design quality of the project proposal;
iv. All above-grade parking is architecturally screened, and the excess parking does not diminish the quality and viability of existing or planned landscape enhancements; and v. Where off-street parking is proposed that exceeds the maximum quantities specified, such parking shall not be the principal use of the property.
Parking Management Strategies
In addition to parking maximums, Santa Monica employs the following parking management strategies:
• Shared parking: The SMMC allows for reductions in parking minimums when properties share parking between multiple uses.
• Parking and Loading Operations Plans: Projects providing 40+ stalls, new surface lots/structures, or space‑efficient parking must submit a PLOP detailing circulation, on‑site queuing, valet/attendant operations, user allocation, short/long‑term bike parking, loading, screening, and wayfinding.
• Space‑efficient facilities: Santa Monica enables tandem, mechanical stackers, and automated systems to fit required parking in less area—with on‑site queuing, attendant requirements, supplemental short‑term stalls at busier sites, and safety back‑ups (e.g., generators/manual override). These stalls still count toward the maximum, but the operating rules ensure they function without degrading the street.
• Transportation demand management (TDM): New projects at defined thresholds (≥ 16 residential units; ≥ 7,500SF non‑residential) must prepare TDM Plans to reduce single‑occupant vehicle trips.
Measures can include mode‑shift amenities, mobility information, and on‑site facilities. • Bicycle parking requirements: The City has bicycle parking requirements for both residential and non-residential uses.
• Emission Reduction Plan (ERP): Separately, worksites with 50+ employees must submit an annual ERP(under Ch. 9.53) with AVR/VMT tracking and trip‑reduction commitments, reinforcing demand management citywide.
1 SMMC Calculating Off-Street Parking and Loading Spaces.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
28 • Parking unbundling: State law (AB 1317 / Civil Code § 1947.1) requires unbundled parking in new multifamily buildings with 16+ units receiving a Certificate of Occupancy on/after Jan 1, 2025, in L.A. County (includes Santa Monica).
• Preferential Parking: To guard neighborhood streets from spillover, the City administers Preferential Parking Zones (Ch. 3.08) with zone‑specific eligibility, enforcement, and an official citywide map.
• Paid parking: On-street parking meters and paid off-street public parking. • Downtown access management (off‑street permits & pricing): In Downtown—where maximums apply—the City uses monthly structure permits (separate programs for residents and employees) to encourage parking demand to municipal facilities and manage utilization with pricing and eligibility controls.
• Design & frontage quality standards: When evaluating parking in capped areas, the code emphasizes on‑site queuing, pedestrian/bicycle safety, architectural screening of above‑grade parking, and loading management—all enforced through the PLOP and related conditions—to ensure limited supply doesn’t compromise the public realm.
Berkeley
Key Findings
• To reduce VMTs and align with climate policies, the City implemented a maximum 0.5 space per dwelling unit (for projects over two units) near high-quality transit as part of an overall parking reform package that includes eliminating residential parking requirements. • The City conducted a study and found that parking in and around surveyed multifamily buildings was substantially underutilized—averaging about 55% utilization (≈54% off‑street, ≈61% on‑street) with only ~0.5 vehicles registered per dwelling unit—indicating Berkeley’s residential parking supply/requirements exceeded actual demand.2
Applicability of Maximums
The City of Berkeley applies residential parking maximums in transit-rich locations and specific non- residential caps in the Residential – BART Mixed Use (R-BMU) district. • Near Major Transit (citywide): Within 0.25 miles of a major transit stop (and on designated transit corridors with frequent service), residential parking is capped at 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit. • R-BMU (BART station districts): Non-residential uses are capped at no more than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 SF.
Residential Parking Maximums
Residential parking maximums apply within 0.25 miles of a major transit stop or along designated transit corridors: 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit (all unit sizes).
2 Source: January 26, 2021 Parking Reform Presentation: Microsoft PowerPoint - Item xx Parking reform_Final.pptx Culver City Parking Maximums Study
29 Nonresidential Parking Maximums
Non-residential parking maximums apply in the R-BMU district, with a cap of ≤ 1.5 spaces per 1,000 SF for most non-residential uses.
Maximum Flexibility
If an applicant seeks more than the 0.5 spaces/unit limit near transit, Berkeley allows an Administrative Use Permit only if one of the following is demonstrated:
1. Demand cannot be met by permitted off-street supply, transit service, or better use of nearby parking; or
2. Residents have disability/health/safety needs requiring additional parking.
Parking Management Strategies
• Shared parking. Berkeley allows two or more uses to share the same off-street spaces by recording a joint-use agreement (approved with an Administrative Use Permit). Required parking can also be placed off-site—generally within 300 ft (citywide) and up to 800 ft (Downtown C DMU). • Citywide TDM requirements: Residential projects with ≥ 10 units must: (1) unbundle parking from rent/sales, (2) provide free transit benefits (e.g., monthly bus pass) for 10 years, and (3) install real-time transit information displays—plus submit TDM compliance reports. • Downtown Parking and TDM Requirements: In C-DMU, larger facilities must install dynamic occupancy signage; residential parking must be unbundled (with a limited waiver path for certain projects); projects over 20,000SF must offer free transit benefits; and residential projects that provide off-street parking must set aside car-share spaces. • Bicycle parking requirements: The City has bicycle parking requirements for both residential and non-residential uses.
• Demand-based curb pricing (“goBerkeley”): Curb meters use variable prices and time limits to keep about 1–2 spaces available per block; rates are adjusted by location and demand (e.g., different prices Downtown vs. other corridors).
• Residential Preferential Parking (RPP): The RPP program implements permit-only parking in signed zones (with time limits for non-permit vehicles). With the passage of the parking maximums, the City also updated the parking permit program so that new development could no longer obtain residential parking permits.
• City-operated garages and monthly permits: Downtown and Southside garages use posted pricing and monthly permits to channel demand off-street (e.g., Center Street monthly passes). This complements street pricing to manage peak activity.
• Transportation Services Fee (TSF). New development requires payment of a Transportation Services Fee, which funds transit passes and ride-share incentives.
San Diego
Key Findings
• The City of San Diego has a parking maximum of 1 space per unit in Downtown.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
30 • A survey of residential buildings showed that “the parking demand in the off‑street project garages is below one parking space/DU,” with observed weekday demand ~0.84–0.96 spaces/unit and weekend demand ~0.72–0.90 spaces/unit.3
• Citywide non-residential: Non-residential uses throughout the City have maximum parking requirements, with the ratio varying widely by zone. Up to 25/1,000SF in some districts, with 5.5 in mixed-use districts
Applicability of Maximums
San Diego has parking maximums for both residential and non-residential uses:
• Downtown: For multifamily residential, there is a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. • Citywide non-residential: Non-residential uses throughout the City have parking maximums, with the ratio varying based on land use and zoning district.
Residential Parking Maximums
Downtown San Diego has a maximum parking ratio of 1 space per dwelling unit.
Nonresidential Parking Maximums
• In the Gaslamp District (historical Downtown district), parking maximums apply:
o Hotel – 0.3/room
o Retail – 1/1,000SF
o Office – 1.5/1,000SF
• In the rest of the City, San Diego has had nonresidential maximums which vary by zoning district and by land use. The general ranges for key non-residential land uses are included below:
o Retail: 5.5-6.5/1,000SF
o Restaurant: 20-25/1,000SF
o Office: 5-6/1,000SF
Maximum Flexibility
For residential uses in the Center City Planned District, parking provided in tandem or within a mechanical automobile lift is not counted toward the maximum. The maximum of 1 space per unit can be exceeded if:
• The development floor area ratio (FAR) is no less than 80% of the maximum FAR. • At least 20% of all parking spaces provided include electric vehicle supply equipment. • At least four points of transportation amenities are provided (amenity examples are included in the following section).
• All off-street parking spaces that exceed the 1.0 space per unit shall be within an underground parking garage.
• Pay the Active Transportation In Lieu Fee.
3 Source Downtown San Diego Off‑Street Parking Standards Study (Appendix C)” (prepared January 16, 2019). appendix_c_-_tpa_multifamily_residential_parking_standards_study.pdf Culver City Parking Maximums Study
31 For non-residential uses in the Gaslamp District, the maximum can be exceeded if all the following apply:
• At least 20% of all parking spaces provided include electric vehicle supply equipment. • At least four points of transportation amenities are provided. • All off-street parking spaces that exceed the maximum shall be within an underground parking garage.
For non-residential uses elsewhere in the City, development proposals may exceed the maximum parking requirement with the approval of a Neighborhood Development Permit, subject to the following:
• The applicant must show that the proposed parking spaces are required to meet anticipated parking demand, will not encourage additional automobile trips, and will not result in adverse site design impacts; and
• The number of parking spaces provided cannot be greater than 125 percent of the maximum that would otherwise be permitted.
Transportation Amenities
The transportation amenities are features provided by a development that reduce vehicle trips and inform, educate, and incentivize transit use, biking, walking, and ridesharing. 4 The City offers a menu of transportation amenity options.
The following programmatic elements are included in the menu of options:
• Provide transit pass subsidies for residents within the development • Provide an on-site bicycle fleet
• Provide an on-site fleet of micro mobility vehicles
The following design elements are included in the menu of options:
• Pedestrian scale lighting
• Sidewalk widening to 6 feet along property frontage and sidewalk widening to 10 feet near corners of intersection to allow for ADA-required widths
• Installation of transit shelters and/or benches
• On-site bicycle repair station
• Child transportation storage for items such as car seats and strollers • Provide a secure area for receipt of deliveries
• Construct and maintain a commercial space that is reserved for a healthy food facility within a development
• Provide dedicated micro mobility spaces (including charging infrastructure) at a rate of 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units (minimum of two spaces) • Construct and maintain an outdoor fitness circuit
• Construct and maintain a commercial space that is reserved for a child care center • Provide co-working space
• Provide storage for accessibility/mobility devices for people with disabilities • Install and maintain an on-site kiosk or information center with transit and rideshare information
4 Land Development Manual Appendix Q. City of San Diego. March 25, 2019. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ldm_appendix_q_0.pdf Culver City Parking Maximums Study
32 • Provide a bicycle fleet storage area
Parking Management Strategies
• Parking unbundling: Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) have no minimum parking requirements. Any parking spaces provided for projects within TPAs must be unbundled, meaning the parking cost must be paid separately and is optional, not included in the purchase price or rent. The unbundling requirement does not apply to developments with four or fewer units or to developments that provide at least 20 percent Affordable units.
• Transportation Demand Management: Based on a project’s ranking for vehicle trip reduction, transportation amenities are required for projects within a TPA. The transportation amenities are features provided by a development that reduce vehicle trips and inform, educate, and incentivize transit use, biking, walking, and ridesharing. A Transportation Amenity Score is assigned to each project based on factors related to bedroom ratio, jobs-housing score, environmental priority index score, and transit commute score. Depending on the Score, a certain number of transportation amenities must be provided. The transportation amenities requirement does not apply to residential developments in Downtown San Diego or residential developments with at least 20 percent Affordable units.
• Shared parking: Shared parking is permitted in all zones except for residential zones. Shared uses must be within 1,200 feet of one another and meet the specified formula in the City Code. • Residential Parking permits: San Diego Residential Permit Parking creates designated neighborhood permit districts where on‑street parking is prohibited during posted enforcement hours; the program is intended to reduce commuter parking pressure. • Dynamic paid parking pricing: The City adjusts parking rates to better address times and locations where there is high parking demand.
• Transportation and Parking Fees: Developers are required to pay certain transportation and parking fees:
o Mobility Development Impact Fee: Paid by most new developments (residential + non‑residential) in the City. Used to fund mobility infrastructure such as roadway improvements, bicycle facilities, sidewalks/curb ramps, traffic signals/roundabouts, and related system upgrades identified in adopted nexus studies. o Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fee: Paid by new residential development only. Used for regional transportation improvements (e.g., arterial and interchange improvements, transit-supportive facilities). o Active Transportation In‑Lieu Fee (ATILF): Paid by residential and non‑residential development areas that are >85% of the regional average vehicle miles traveled (VMT), often characterized as being farther from jobs/services with more limited transit. Used to support active transportation investments (walking/rolling and biking-supportive improvements) as part of the City’s mobility/complete communities implementation.
Culver City Parking Maximums Study
33 List of California Cities with Parking Maximums
Jurisdiction Geography Land Use Jurisdiction Geography Land Use Alameda
County
Business District Non-residential Mountain
View
Office Park Office
Alameda Citywide All uses Oakland City Center/Near
Transit
All uses
Berkeley Near Transit Residential Pasadena City Center/Near Transit
Non-residential
Concord Citywide All uses Pomona City Center All uses
East Palo Alto Business District All uses Sacramento City Center Residential Emeryville Citywide All uses San Diego Citywide Non-residential Fort Bragg Citywide All uses San Diego Downtown Residential Fremont City Center All uses San
Francisco
Citywide All uses
Hayward Business District Residential Santa Monica Citywide All uses
Sunnyvale Citywide Non-residential